Orri Erling (Program Manager: OpenLink Virtuoso) has dropped a well explained reiteration of the essence of the "Linked Data Web" or "Data Web" with an emphasis on the business value. His post is titled: State of the Semantic Web (Part 1) - Sociology, Business, and Messaging.
Typically, Orri's post are targeted at the hard core RDF and SQL DBMS audiences, but in this particular post, he shoots straight at the business community revealing "Opportunity Cost" containment as the invisible driver behind the business aspects of any market inflection.
Remember, the Web isn't ubiquitous because its users mastered the mechanics and virtues of HTML and/or HTTP. Web ubiquity is a function of the opportunity cost of not being on the Web, courtesy of the network effects of hyperlinked documents -- i.e., the instant gratification of traversing documents on the Web via a single click action. In similar fashion, the Linked Data Web's ubiquity will simply come down to the opportunity cost of not being "inside the Web", courtesy of the network effects of hyperlinked entities (documents, people, music, books, and other "Things").
Here are some excerpts from Orri's post:
Every time there is a major shift in technology, this shift needs to be motivated by addressing a new class of problem. This means doing something that could not be done before. The last time this happened was when the relational database became the dominant IT technology. At that time, the questions involved putting the enterprise in the database and building a cluster of line of business applications around the database. The argument for the RDBMS was that you did not have to constrain the set of queries that might later be made, when designing the database. In other words, it was making things more ad hoc. This was opposed then on grounds of being less efficient than the hierarchical and network databases which the relational eventually replaced.Today, the point of the Data Web is that you do not have to constrain what your data can join or integrate with, when you design your database. The counter-argument is that this is slow and geeky and not scalable. See the similarity?
A difference is that we are not specifically aiming at replacing the RDBMS. In fact, if you know exactly what you will query and have a well defined workload, a relational representation optimized for the workload will give you about 10x the performance of the equivalent RDF warehouse. OLTP remains a relational-only domain.
However, when we are talking about doing queries and analytics against the Web, or even against more than a handful of relational systems, the things which make RDBMS good become problematic.
If we think about Web 1.0 as a period where the distinguishing noun was: "Author", and Web 2.0 the noun: "Journalist", we should be able to see that what comes next is the noun: "Analyst". This new generation analyst would be equipped with de-referencable Web Identity courtesy of their Person Entity URI. The analyst's URI would also be the critical component of Web based low cost attribution ecosystem; one that ultimately turns the URI into the analyst's brand emblem / imprint.
Comments